Review of the Webber Essay – Combined Parts - Draft
Repudiation
of the Jay Webber Emmaus Conference Essay, 2015
The Term Justification and the Double Justification of OJ
and SJ.
The essay
begins with the routine, practiced dishonesty of the crowd who took over the
Synodical Conference and sold its members down the river to mainline apostasy
and union with the ELCA. Nothing is more appropriate than to have Jay Webber
write - an advocate for open communion with ELCA. Moreover, as a Lutheran missionary
in the Ukraine, Webber was happy to work with and obtain money from Floyd
Luther Stolzenburg, Church Growth advocate extraordinaire in Columbus, Ohio –
unfaithful in marriage and doctrine, expelled from the LCMS but embraced by
WELS/ELS.
The essay
is not about justification but the pet dogma of the mainline Protestants, CFW
Walther, and Martin Stephan – universal absolution without faith. Webber
chooses to call this “an aspect” of justification in focusing on Objective
Justification. But for the heirs of rationalistic Pietism, Objective
Justification is the Gospel and faith is only an afterthought. Yes, their
Gospel message is – “The entire world has already been forgiven and saved,
without faith.” Their afterthought is, “But you have to believe this for it to
matter for your sin-free, guilt-free soul.” This afterthought is called
Subjective Justification, which has also been demoted by Webber to an “aspect
of justification.”
These
peculiar labels, Objective Justification and Subjective Justification, have a
history, but one outside of the Lutheran Church. Long ago, when few theology
books were printed, Georg Christian Knapp published his Halle University
lectures in German. He was considered the last of the old fashioned Pietists at
Halle, which was established to promote Pietism. The university rapidly became
rationalistic, and some of that certainly rubbed off on Knapp. He denied that
the Christian Church’s definition of the Holy Trinity was in harmony with the
Bible. But Knapp was old-fashioned for his time, and his book was translated by
the Calvinist Woods in America. Knapp was already established as a famous and
traditional theologian for all Protestants, so this translation was published
well before the Stephanites landed in New Orleans in 1839. However, the group
remained German speaking for many decades and doubtless relied on the German
edition of Knapp. The Calvinist translator explained Knapp’s opaque language in
a footnote -
"This
is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective
justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he proffers
pardon to all through Christ; subjective, is the act of man, by which he
accepts the pardon freely offered in the Gospel. The former is universal, the
latter not (Woods, p. )."
The terms, conveniently expressed, did not come from
Confessional Lutherans, but from a famous Calvinist with no Lutheran training.
The impact of the English Halle lectures made itself felt when the two terms
were adapted in Germany and pleased Walther, who approved their use. This does
not make them orthodox or Lutheran, although the soothsayers would have us
believe that. Instead, the adoption of Objective Justification reveals the
common thread of Halle Pietism and rationalism in America. All the Lutheran
groups were Pietistic to some extent and this Pietism soon displaced their
loyalty to any Confessions, whether Calvinistic or Lutheran. The spirit of
Pietism—which favors cooperation over sound doctrine—makes it easy for the
LCMS, WELS, and ELS to work with the ELCA – especially through Thrivent. Their own LCMS/WELS pastor, Mark Jeske sits
on the Thrivent board.
Halle Rationalistic Pietism
We should never underestimate the power and influence of
Halle University and its rationalistic Pietism. The founder of the ULCA/LCA
tradition was Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, who taught at the Franke Foundation
orphanage at Halle. The real founder of the Missouri Synod, Martin Stephan,
attended but did not graduate from Halle University. In fact, Stephan never
graduated from a university and was not qualified to be a pastor. His position
as a Bohemian and Pietist gave him the credibility to be called to the Pietist
congregation, which was closely allied with the Pietist Zinzendorf. The Pietist
Stephan attracted the attention of the Pietistic Walther group of clergy, who
gravitated to Stephan when their Pietist guru - Johann Gottlieb Kuehn - suddenly
died.
The
main theologian of the Wisconsin Synod, Adolph Hoenecke, graduated from Halle
University in 1859. His mentor Tholuck was a Universalist. Thus we should not
be too shocked that Hoenecke wrote about General Justification, a misleading
translation of the German term – algemeine Rechtfertigung – Universal
Justification (every single one, no exceptions, as in Universal Conscription).
As one theological student asked, “What happened to
Subjective Justification in the mainline denominations like ELCA?” The best
explanation comes from the meaning of the term – not faith in Christ, but faith
in Universal Justification – “the former is universal, “as the Calvinist Woods
translated. The nature of Subjective Justification dooms it to make faith
irrelevant, as Webber’s essay has demonstrated with countless, stolid,
prolixic, redundancies.
Another
Obscure Pietistic Hero
Webber
enjoys citing Pietists and baptizing them as orthodox or confessional
Lutherans. The seldom-cited Quistorp gets that treatment from Webber, which
would make church historians gasp in wonder. Strangely, Webber begins his essay
citing Professor Caroll Herman Little, who once served as president of the
seminary I attended – Waterloo Lutheran in Ontario, Canada. Robert Preus once
mentioned Little to me and doubtless taught Little as an example of a ULCA
pastor who agreed with the LCMS about doctrine. One little problem remains –
the Canada Synod was Pietistic. For example, when one of the patriarchs of the
synod visited a home and saw the boys playing cards, he said nothing. On
Sunday, old Reble delivered a blistering sermon on the evils of playing cards –
a typical Pietistic sermon for that era. Like most readers I have to wonder why
Little’s opinions about justification matter to anyone.
Misuse
of Justification as a Term
The
Objective Justification cabal has decided that their peculiar dogma is the
justification of the Reformation, the Book of Concord, and the Scriptures.
Rather than attack justification by faith directly, they simply substitute
their philosophy for Biblical doctrine, knowing well that their OJ terminology
is found no earlier than Pietism – after the Reformation – and freely witnessed
in various denominations and even in cults.
“ Legal universal justification implies that all human
beings come into the world legally saved, pardoned, justified; from God's perspective
they are not lost. If it is true that every human being who has been and will
be born on this planet was present in Christ when he died and that they all
were legally justified, then those who are not yet born have already been
justified.” Adventist website –
One should not be shocked by Synodical Conference authors
praising justification in the words of Luther and switching to OJ for the rest
of the essay. Webber is almost this obvious.
Indeed, Webber on page 3
indulges himself in the usual potpourri of Scriptural citations that do not
fit. He quoted Romans 5:18 – as the Adventist did. In spite of Romans 4 being a
chapter about justification by faith, climaxing with Romans 5:1-2, Webber
fished out Romans 4:25, part of a verse, avoiding the real meaning of the
sentence, chapter, and epistle.
Romans 4:22 And therefore it was
imputed to him [Abraham] for righteousness.
23 Now it
was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for
us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus
our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was
delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. KJV
As we see in many LCMS publications, the
citations are simply stated as if they prove a contentious point, but there is no
contention since the OJ mob does not recognize, quote, or acknowledge
justification by faith. For example, Webber studied under Robert Preus but in
this essay never mentioned the last book of Preus, Justification and Rome, which eviscerated OJ in a series of
quotations from orthodox Lutherans.
More
Confusion – In View of Faith
As many
have observed, the second part is just as distorted and strange as Objective
Justification. Note the additional terms – Individual, Personal, and Subjective
Justification. So many terms are needed to replace justification by faith.
Webber defines this Subjective Justification as faith in Objective Justification –
“… the actual acceptance by faith in the Objective
Justification.” (p. 3)
The plot grows even shallower –
“If personal or subjective Justification is the acceptance
by faith of Objective Justification it is manifest that it does not take place
‘in view of faith.’ Thus a synergistic view of Justification is avoided. (p. 3)
The logic is bizarre, because Webber proves his assumption
with his assumption, reasoning in a circle. Justification by faith is
synergistic or Calvinism – I can never figure those accusations out. If
justification by faith, as taught by Paul, Luther, and the Book of Concord, is
synergistic, then what is faith in OJ, as taught by Stephan, Walther, DP Ed
Werner, and David Valleskey?
This in view of faith accusation seems to
have originated in Walther’s febrile mind, where he imagined faith as a work.
And yet, the self-contradicting Walther told his gullible followers they had to
make a decision for OJ, precisely what Webber is claiming.
Naturally, one can never be accused of anything when aping
Walther, but the circle of rationalistic Pietists supporting rationalistic
Pietists is not a compelling Biblical or Concordist argument.
No
Grasp of Lutheran Doctrine
Webber
displays no grasp of Lutheran doctrine as he wanders from point to point,
something to be expected when someone starts with a Canadian-American professor
of Pietism as the ruling norm of doctrine. There are minor disagreements among
the Lutherans, say Little and Webber, but no worry. (p. 4)
One would
never imagine that this Webber essay is an extended, if bloated, attack on
justification by faith, the Bible, Luther, the Book of Concord, the
post-Concord orthodox Lutherans, Gerhard, groups within the LCMS, and
Gausewitz. Dismissing a long history of justification by faith and large
numbers of people who find OJ alarmingly foul, Webber tries to jawbone the new
Synodical Conference into an agreement that never will happen. Too many people,
when informed of the agenda of OJ, disagree with great energy and conviction.
Part 2
of review
Webber’s
claim to find only minor differences within the Synodical Conference view of
justification is patently false. Wishing the differences away will not make
that illusion a reality. (p 4)
1. The
1905 Missouri catechism, in German, taught justification by faith and never
mentioned Objective Justification.
2. Concordia
Publishing House, LCMS, still prints a KJV catechism with no mention of OJ in
it, bragging that “two million copies have been sold.”
3. The
original Gausewitz catechism, used by the entire Synodical Conference, perhaps
standard for WELS, did not mention OJ but taught justification by faith.
4. Even
within the OJ dream team, there exists a radical difference between the entire
world being absolved at the death of Christ or at the moment of His
resurrection. The dates cannot be reconciled, simply another part of the
nonsense call UOJ.
5. In
quoting Sasse about the Book of Concord, Webber is using a red herring, since
the Book of Concord teaches justification by faith, not the anti-Christian
dogma of justification without faith. (p. 4)
6. The
Brief Statement quotation is correct about the Confessions, but the Brief
Statement is utterly wrong about justification, serving as the triumph of the
Stephan-Walther-Pieper faction. Besides that simple fact, the Brief Statement
has no canonical or confessional authority whatsoever and only marks the
beginning of the end for Lutheran doctrine and practice in Missouri and allied
sects.
Webber, like Buchholz, imagines that declaring something to
be true, without any evidence for that claim, is sufficient. But neither man
has credentials for more than repeating the bromides of the Walther-Kokomo
faction. If everyone is united, apart from trivial details, why is another
windy essay needed? This farrago of unwarranted claims was so compelling to DP
Bucholz that he gave it to his WELS congregations to read, mark, and inwardly
digest. More than one got indigestion from it.
B. In the Webber Essay, Forgiveness in the Old Testament
Webber
wants his audience to believe that he is being consistent with the Solid
Declaration of the Formula of Concord. He quotes the Third Article,
misunderstanding the Atonement, but fails to name the Article – III. The Righteousness of Faith. Why are these
Enthusiasts allergic to the word faith? Justification by faith is slandered by
calling it Calvinism or – oddly enough – Arminianism. One is the opposite of
the other, so how ignorant can these people be? To remain consistent with the
Great Walther, who had a limited education—only a bachelor’s at a rationalistic
school—Webber has to treat faith as a work and make it inconsequential.
The ultimate irony is that
Walther’s entire concept of justification came from a man with little interest
in a theological education, who never completed his – Martin Stephan. But
looking at the official history of the Missouri Synod, Stephan does not exist.
According to the LCMS, the synod suddenly birthed itself, with Walther as the
leader, in 1847, not when the cult landed in New Orleans in 1839 and Walther
joined in making their Pietistic leader a bishop for life.
Significant and damning details are omitted about the
forgotten eight years between the landing in America and the formation of the
Synod. So Webber is really defending the dogma of Pietistic era, a Pietistic
cult leader who literally saved Walther’s life by turning him from unhealthy
penitential works to the Gospel – or a bad version of the Gospel.
He
[Kuhn, their first Pietist leader] urged the group to practice various kinds of
denial and hardship in order to test and prove their conversion and commitment
and join Christ in His sufferings. It was said of the leader that he had come
to his spiritual certainty through many temptations and believed others should
do the same. Walther practiced these spiritual exercises to the extreme,
depriving himself of food and exercise because he thought these things were
sinful. Walther’s condition was described by Franz Delitzsch: “During that
period of struggle he was wasted like a skeleton, coughed blood, suffered from
insomnia, and experienced the terrors of hell. He was more dead than alive.”
Stephan,
Philip; Stephan, Philip (2008-04-07). In
Pursuit of Religious Freedom: Bishop Martin Stephan's Journey (p. 67).
Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
Later, as Stephan degenerated in every possible way, he
decided he was in charge of the souls and the bodies of young women. Kuhn was
all Law, but Stephan was a Universalist, clinging to the formulae of Halle
University.
When this
was debated on the Intrepid Lutherans blog, Webber chose the explanation of
Rambach the Halle Pietist, over Martin Chemnitz, the senior editor of the Book
of Concord and Formula of Concord. Rambach over Chemitz? The Pietist Quistorp
extolled as an orthodox Lutheran? The Pietist Stephan erased from history and
replaced by Walther, another Pietist, now rechristened as an orthodox Lutheran.
I see a pattern.
The heroes
of the LCMS are the clergy underlings of Stephan who did not notice their
leader’s adultery, in spite of massive evidence, including their leader leaving
his sick wife and children in Dresden while taking his healthy son and his
mistress on the same ship. The Walther circle chose not to see the obvious
until the time came to organize a mob, threaten, rob, and kidnap their bishop
for life. CFW Walther was already their leader, at the age of 29+, parish
experience, about two years.
Fashion Another Straw Man
Webber
would have us accept his conformist (to mainline Pietism) views of faith. (p.
5) He must make his solemn declarations mesh with the sonorities of the
Walther-Pieper-JP Meyer faction. That means dodging the teaching of Luther,
Chemnitz, Melanchthon, Gerhard, and the Scriptures themselves. The OJ faction
would like to have us believe they are not Universalists, but what definition
fits those who declare the entire world forgiven and saved, as Webber and
Buchholz do. When they walk their reasoning back to some authority, it is the
Preuss who became a Roman Catholic after seeing a beautiful sunset – a sign
from God to pope. Ignoring that, they say, as their cult does – “I cannot
believe I am forgiven unless it has already taken place.”
This kind
of statement shows the danger of engaging in slogans, which are repeated until
they become a substitute for the Scriptures. OJ is a turn away from the
Atonement, but that turn is a veering off the cliff into absurdities like the
ones to be quoted from Webber.
“Our faith does not rely on a potential righteousness or
even a righteousness that is not yet ‘our righteousness’ before God.” (p. 5)
“Our faith does not contribute, in whole or in part, toward
bringing ‘our righteousness’ into existence.” (p. 5)
C. Law and Gospel Section p. 6
Webber’s
fundamental mistake starts with assuming that the Gospel is the universal
absolution of the world – without faith. Walther has some good statements in
the copied (not written) Law and Gospel lectures, but those insights are from
Luther. Like all those suffering from rationalistic Pietism, Walther
contradicted himself without fail. So do Webber and the entire, small group
of Lutherans who think they are orthodox because they agree with Halle Pietism
and ELCA rationalism.
Because
the OJ crowd does not comprehend the Atonement, they confuse it with the
man-made dogma of universal forgiveness/absolution without faith. They imagine
that every mention, every praise of the Atonement is another example of their
precious OJ concept. Examples are:
·
The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the
world – but this does not mean absolving the world.
·
He died for the ungodly – but Christ did not
die for the godly.
·
He was raised for our justification – but they
ignore the preceding words – if they believe…
·
Justified in the Spirit – since Jesus was
declared righteous to the world, the world became righteous at the moment of
resurrection, the dogma of Pietism – not the doctrine of Chemnitz.
·
It is finished – Jesus was not speaking of His
death, but UOJ.
This universal absolution
cannot be reconciled with any part of Scripture, though they may find a few
sentence here and there, among the theologians, that elicit a gasp of awe as
they declare “We have found the OJ core,” but that is irrelevant – even if
true. The Scriptures are the ruling norm, not Luther or Ambrose or the early
Robert Preus or the elderly JP Meyer.
Webber’s meandering prose
about Law and Gospel is simply incomprehensible. That is the problem with
someone pretending to be confessional without identifying what he condemns. He
appears to be against justification by faith, but he cloaks this opposition,
which would fall harshly on unwaxed ears. There is no confession, only another
monologue from the Amen Corner of mainline Protestantism. His fellowship with mainline
apostasy is revealed in his anxiety to commune ELCA members, meaning they
believe the same things.
Do I need to mention that
Webber quotes the ESV, the Calvinist edition of the National Council of
Churches’ Revised Standard Version? Here is a discussion of the odious RSV, and
its update, the ESV –
Webber
solemnly declares on page 8, “Do not try too hard to understand this,” and then
quotes from the classic efficacy passage of Old Testament – Isaiah 55. Like
Darwin, he can observe and study something for years and miss the entire story
while publishing minute and largely irrelevant details. The efficacy of the
Word, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel Word – that is entirely missing
in this botch.
After
using up some of his notes from Old Testament class, Webber renews his attack
on justification by faith on page 10.
A conditional message about a
potential justification is not the Christian Gospel. It is no Gospel at all. It
cannot calm the fears of a troubled conscience. It cannot grant comfort or
elicit faith. Quite simply, a conditional message about a potential
justification cannot forgive sins.
Compounding the stupidity of this straw man is one even
worse, from Ken Schurb, whose only distinction is an alliance with Al Barry and
Paul McCain. The verbiage is even more foolish – [Note the “in Christ” which is
another fundamental error of Webber. The New Testament term applies only to
believers, but that is conveniently ignored.]
A crushed unbeliever must be
told that God is no longer angry with him in Christ, that all his sins are
forgiven, that God has declared him “not guilty” (i.e. justified him) – or he
will not believe…In other words, he must know objective justification.
Clearly, these two beginners have no grasp of justification
by faith, so they distort both sides of the issue, calling their hogwash The Gospel and erecting a straw man
instead of fairly and honestly describing justification by faith.
Some
points of clarification were never taught them or the points were untaught them
in seminary. Many never progress beyond required readings in school, especially
when they keep an eye on how to get ahead in sects taken over by apostates. As
the promulgator of the Kokomo controversy admitted, he never heard of UOJ
before seminary at Mequon.
·
The Gospel Word has the divine, efficacious
power of the Spirit to create and sustain faith, and this faith receives the
promises and blessings from Christ’s atoning death and triumphant resurrection.
·
Justification in the New Testament, Luther, and
the Book of Concord only means justification by faith. Justification is always
individual and always a matter of faith rather than works. If justification by
faith is denied, the only alternative is justification by works.
·
The entire work of the Christian Church is
based upon justification by faith, preaching and teaching, Sacraments, pastoral
visitation and counseling, marriage and burial of the dead. To say that the
Gospel is teaching Universalism is an abomination.
Repudiation
of Jay Webber Essay
D. Forgiveness and Justification
Webber quotes Melanchthon 10
pages into this endless paper, after established Ken Schurb as the final
authority on justification. But what is the point? Webber declares –
“Forgiveness and justification are not the same” – but in what context, the reader wonders?
Frequently used words change meaning from their context.
By this time the audience
anticipates the agenda of the essay. There is no attempt to grasp the Biblical
doctrine, to deal with the Biblical text, and even less interest in the
Reformation. This is nothing more than wandering around the topic and making ex cathedra declarations that offer no
warrant for their proclamation. I have
to concede that Webber, like Paul McCain, suffers from an inferior education.
Concordia in Ft. Wayne was enchanted by UOJ and Church Growth when both MDivs
graduated. Professors like David Scaer simply announced their personal
revelations. Yelling substituted for teaching and guaranteed the unquestionable
truth of the nonsense offered.
Webber quotes from the Book of
Concord – the Fortress Press (ELCA) edition, where one of the main editors is
an ELCA professor. This should concern the gathered divines, but they are so far into cooperation
and worship with ELCA that abandoning a better Book of Concord – their own Triglotta – is no worse than dispatching
the King James Version to the dustbins of history. To quote, to cite, to dream,
perchance to commune ELCA – thus conscience makes cowards of us all, when
Thrivent grants drip with booty and Marvin Schwan posthumously offers his
indulgence fees on EZ pay terms.
3. Should I with scoffers join
Her altars to abuse?
No! Better far my tongue were dumb,
My hand its skill should lose.
Hymn #462
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: Ps.137
Author: Timothy Dwight, 1800, ab., alt.
Webber has long indulged in
quoting the Book of Concord to make it seem like a textbook for Objective
Justification – universal forgiveness without faith. Having written no books
and having authored no publications worth mentioning, he does not reveal any reading
comprehension beyond the level of public high school, where every issue is
political and has one answer. The intended meaning of the authority is primary,
so words taken out of context should never be used to reverse the meaning of
the author. That is especially true of the Holy Spirit’s only publication – the
Bible – but almost as important with the Lutheran Confessions.
Topical headings in the
original should be noted, but this is the second time already that Article III
is not named – The Righteousness of Faith. Likewise, Melanchthon’s Apology has
been mentioned, but the topical headings alone in the justification section cut
this essay to pieces, gathered its withered fragments, and burned them with
everlasting fire. The problem with a synodocrat author constantly repeating the
political message is evident – a blindness in reading sources except to imagine
and invent support for a universally acknowledged (except by Webber) late
dogma.
Let us take a break from the
bilge for a moment and cite the Book of Concord on this topic. The Concordists
called themselves theologians of the Augsburg Confession, following Luther, so
we can conclude that these confessors were one with Luther and Melanchton,
often students of both, as Tyndale (the original KJV translator) was.
The Chief Article – also known
as the Master and Prince – is justification by faith, not OJ. To use the
Pietist’s label, Subjective Justification, and make the original doctrine
appear to be false doctrine—is the worse calumny of Christian doctrine. It is
false and malicious, and no one can excuse it because of stupidity, ignorance,
or a sub-standard education. The Word of God is plain and clear, a unified
truth that transcends culture, politics, and Midwestern sects.
6] This
article concerning justification by faith (as the Apology says) is the chief
article in the entire Christian doctrine, without which no poor conscience can
have any firm consolation, or can truly know the riches of the grace of Christ,
as Dr. Luther also has written: If this only article remains pure on the
battlefield, the Christian Church also remains pure, and in goodly harmony and
without any sects; but if it does not remain pure, it is not possible that any
error or fanatical spirit can be resisted. (Tom. 5, Jena, p. 159.) 7] And
concerning this article especially Paul says that a little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump. Therefore, in this article he urges with so much zeal and
earnestness the particulas exclusivas, that is, the words whereby the works of
men are excluded (namely, without Law, without works, by grace [freely], Rom. 3:28; 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9), in order to indicate how highly necessary it is that in
this article, aside from [the presentation of] the pure doctrine, the
antithesis, that is, all contrary dogmas, be stated separately, exposed, and
rejected by this means. Solid Declaration, Formula of Concord, Article III, The
Righteousness of Faith.
10]These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost
in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which
we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. 11]
This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly
learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in
Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins
by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the father, and are
eternally saved. 12]
Therefore it is considered and understood to be
the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith, Rom. 3:28
, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5,
and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5:19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith
came to all men, Rom. 5:18. 13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and
reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold
of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this
must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified
thereby. 14]Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to
faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and
resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and
paid for [expiated] our sins. 15] For since Christ is not man alone, but God and
man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is
the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is
concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and
dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the
Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so
that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly
Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our
sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy
Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated,
and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God,
forgiveness of sins, the grace of God, sonship, and heirship of eternal life.
These two quotations by themselves dispose of
the mass of OJ essays foisted upon the innocent, men and women who trust that
their leaders are being faithful rather than faithless in their teaching. Many
more can be provided, and they show that for OJ to be lifted up as The Gospel,
one must conclude that the Bible, Luther, the Concordists, and the
post-Concordists like Gerhard contradict
themselves. Or perhaps the Holy Spirit is a Calvinist, or an Arminian, or both
– since both accusations are leveled at justification by faith.
2. With fraud which they themselves invent
Thy truth they have confounded;
Their hearts are not with one consent
On Thy pure doctrine grounded.
While they parade with outward show,
They lead the people to and fro,
In error's maze astounded
Hymn 260
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: Ps. 12
Author: Martin Luther, 1523
Webber
even used the Deutschlander (WELS) argument (p. 11) that OJ and SJ are found
throughout the Augsburg Confession, but not really developed as such - once
again misreading the Atonement and justification by faith. By page 12 the
dishonesty of the essay is even more apparent, because the real agenda is to
claim that everyone is forgiven and saved without faith, even before they are
born. Paul McCain and Jack Cascione, from the same Church Growth-UOJ era at Ft.
Wayne, both cited Robert Preus quoting Edward Preuss on this ecstatic burst of
Universalism. Nevertheless, Webber – like his compatriots – lacked to courage
to name what he is attacking, mocking, and straw-manning: justification by
faith.
This
approach is important to observe, because Webber is afraid of a frontal attack.
Instead, he wants to replace justification by faith through substitution:
·
The true Gospel is universal forgiveness and
salvation. Make a decision or else.
·
Unknown to centuries of Lutherans, Luther and
the Concordists promoted OJ, but we are now more aware of this now, because of
the pinheads teaching justification by faith (name it not!).
·
Orthodox Lutheran doctrine is defined – not by
the Scriptures, faithful translations, Luther, or the Book of Concord – but by
the Halle Pietists, the syphilitic founder of the Missouri Synod – Stephan, his
devoted follower Walther, and Walther’s personally selected replacement, F.
Pieper.
·
The true Gospel of universal forgiveness and
salvation is not to be debated or discussed among those troglodytes who teach
otherwise.
Part 5 - Repudiation
of Webber OJ Paper
E. The Ancient Fathers
and Father Martin (GJ - At least Webber did not call the Reformer “Uncle Marty” as DP
Buchholz did – with a smirk – in front of the congregation he was quick to kick
out of WELS and start foreclosure of the mortgage.)
At the very beginning of this
part of our essay, we indicated that its thrust would be to
explain “why objective
justification mattered to the Reformers.” We freely concede that as far as the terminology
of this topic is concerned, the Reformers did not usually speak of the
objective component of our justification or forgiveness as an objective
“justification.” But they most definitely did speak of the objective
component of our justification or forgiveness as an objective “forgiveness.” (p. 12)
Webber
makes another claim here, but he has no warrants for his conclusion. He is
arguing in a circle. As anyone can see, they confuse the Atonement, the act of
dying for the sins of the world, with the Pietists’ assumption that this Redemption
is the absolution of the sins of the world. But if the sins of the world were
absolved at the moment – never sure whether at death or resurrection – then
where is this pronouncement recorded? Only the Enthusiasts argue that the Holy
Spirit works apart from the Word. Since this is a divine action, for all people
and for all time, a clear citation would be appreciated.
Instead
these dabblers and speculators in Christian doctrine latch onto a passage,
ignore any evidence to the contrary and announced, “I have found OJ here, and
there, and lo – in a place no one even suspected OJ to be.”
In
fact this has happened over the last decade, mediated by the divines at
Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne. Earlier it was conceded that justification was
always “by faith” in the Book of Concord and in the New Testament. I read the
essay long ago, published at Ft. Wayne. Suddenly, a graduate found one instance of OJ, though it was clearly through his lack of reading
comprehension. Now another Ft. Wayne graduate – denied ordination in the LCMS –
finds the Book of Concord bristling with OJ, a move Webber borrowed from
Professor Deutschland of WELS.
To
launch this attack on the ancient Fathers and Luther, Webber must expose his
confused and confusing dogma –
An individual is justified by
faith, as he believes in the justification that exists for him, and for all
people, in Christ. Likewise, an individual receives the forgiveness of his
sins, as he clings by faith to the forgiveness of sins that exists for him, and
for all people, in Christ. There is a justification, and a forgiveness, that
already exist in Christ as a result of Christ’s finished saving work in
history, and that are the “object” of saving faith for the penitent and
believing subject. (p.
13)
He relies on his misuse of “in Christ,”
when only believers are “in Christ.” But in Webber’s rationalistic scheme, the
entire world is “in Christ” and therefore justified, forgiven, and saved. This
kind of prose makes one wish for the relative simplicity of Walther’s false
doctrine. Nevertheless, this is a rehash of Walther – making a decision for
Universal Absolution. Everyone is already forgiven, so the individual must
believe in that dogma of Enthusiasm, which has energized Protestant apostasy
ever since Schleiermacher promoted this at…Halle University. That was truly the
turning point in modern Protestantism, inventing Faith Without Belief, using the words of Christianity while
butchering the meaning of each one – as predicted in the Pastoral Epistles.
Webber’s
use of Luther’s analogy on page 13 shows that he does not understand Luther or
St. Paul. The issue is not OJ versus justification by faith. Instead, the
contrast is between justification by works, by the Law – or justification by
faith, through grace. Those who deny justification by faith are necessarily in
the camp of justification by works, as most people can tell by listening. The
OJ salesmen tell everyone about their family tree, their great works, their
honors bestowed by the synod, all of which render them above and beyond our
comprehension.
Ironically,
Webber proves my point on page 14, where Ambrose is quoted –
John bears witness, saying:
“Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the
world!” [John 1:29] Let no
one glory, then, in his own works, since no one is justified by
his deeds, but one who is
just has received a gift, being justified by Baptism. It is faith,
therefore, which sets us free
by the blood of Christ, for he is blessed whose sin is forgiven and to whom
pardon is granted [Psalm 32:1].16
Respecting – really disrespecting Luther
– Webber labors endlessly to prove that the Atonement is the same as his
precious Objective Justification. That is repudiated so often in Luther that no
one needs a list. Justification by faith is just as clearly taught throughout
the Book of Concord, if one reads it for edification rather than for political
points.
If
Webber would not get so excited and speak of world absolution, in harmony with
Walther, Stephan, and the World Council of Churches, he could get away with
some of his language. Luther often spoke of the Atonement being God’s
forgiveness already being accomplished, but never did the Reformer state or
imply that everyone in the world was forgiven before birth. Nor did Luther
start the WELS/LCMS chant – “I was saved 2000 years ago!”
Robert
Preus is perhaps the last of the theologians who read and comprehended so much
of the post-Concord Lutheran theologians, some of whom were influenced by
Pietism. The Preus quotations of Lutherans against UOJ in his Justification and Rome
probably came from those theologians
realizing the Pietists were distorting justification and teaching falsehood.
Those
who want to prove UOJ by what Preus taught earlier should read his last book
and take those quotations seriously. But alas, those quotations are ignored,
and so are Preus’ own words. Preus grew in his scholarship and learning, as all
theologians must, but Webber, McCain, and Cascione are stuck in the 1980s with
their class notes.
Part 6
– Repudiation of the Webber OJ Essay at Emmaus
Total Lack of Comprehension
There are
multiple examples of Webber seizing on an obvious discussion of the Atonement,
by Luther, and labeling it, Objective Justification! That brings to mind the Lutheran
alumni of Fuller Seminary who were forever finding Church Growth Principles! –
while shrinking their denominations. Webber’s adopted sect did the same thing
and its death throes only multiplied in volume and number.
Eventually,
the OJ Enthusiasts will conclude – with some newfound honesty – that the entire
locus (topic) of justification is universal absolution – joining their covert
friends in the ELCA, National Council of Churches, and World Council of
Churches. But like their mainline apostate counterparts, they will continue to
cloak their attacks on faith in Christ by exclaiming –
·
Saved by grace!
·
The whole world, in Christ.
·
I must know it is true before I can believe it.
Like his fiendish OJ friends, Webber is all over the map in
finding Luther’s imaginary OJ. To guard against this problem, the editors of
the Book of Concord selected key writings of Luther. But Webber is allergic to
the Book of Concord. Like many in the Synodical Conference, he likes to have a
pitched battle over footnotes, letters written, and obscure theologians like
Quistorp and Rambach (two of his favorite Pietists).
Here is
one example of Webber’s incomprehension, p 17, quoting Luther.
But he praises the
exceedingly great mercy of God, namely, that “He made purification for sins,”
not through us but through Himself, not for the sins of others but for our
sins. Therefore we should despair of our penitence, of our purification from
sins; for before we repent, our sins have already been forgiven.
Indeed, first His very purification, on the contrary, also produces penitence
in us, just as His righteousness produces our righteousness. This is what Is.
53:6 says: “All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned everyone to his own
way, and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”20
One can find this phrasing here and
there in Luther – and why not? The Atonement is the great treasure, but it lies
there in one heap and does no one any good until it is distributed by the Holy
Spirit through the Means of Grace. Luther clearly and repeatedly wrote that no
one is forgiven without faith in Christ, that same faith Stephan, Walther, and
Webber consider a work rather than God’s creation through His efficacious Word.
The
Book of Concord commended Luther’s Galatians
Commentary for additional study of justification by faith. Webber mentioned
this fact and ignored it. However, see the graphic from the commentary. No one
can debate its meaning, so Webber would have us believe that Luther
contradicted himself repeatedly, which we can discover if we only believe in
the scheme of rationalistic Pietism.
No
one has found a single Luther quote that models the dogma of OJ. The OJ
faction’s ignorance of this fact is a testament to their inability to teach…or
something worse – their utter lack of faith. Either way, Webber has
disqualified himself as Lutheran minister, unless he returns to ELCA, where he
began.
In the objective sense, our
sins were not just potentially forgiven before we repented. It is not as
if the “ingredients” of our forgiveness were laid out on the counter of God’s
kitchen, in preparation for the possibility of
these ingredients being mixed together to form a “forgiveness cake” if and when
we might someday repent and believe. (p. 17f)
What a
nauseating, insulting straw man to toss out. This forgiveness cake reminds me
of ELCA leaders saying, with great condescension, “The Bible is not a book that
fell from heaven.” If someone cannot understand what he is attacking, he cannot
be a confessional pastor. He is boxing shadows on the wall and calling himself
a champion of the truth. The Emmanus board should have limited the effluence to
10 pages. It was too risky to allow so many pages for so many cutesy remarks.
F. Forgiveness, Justification, and the Resurrection,
p. 18
Hiding Behind Sig Becker and the Younger Robert Preus
Now the claws
come out from under the wool and the fangs are bared. This is turning point in
the essay, not to be ignored, because the panoply of weapons against
justification by faith is brought to bear.
The key source is Robert Preus, from
the days when the Ft. Wayne seminary faculty united in endorsing Church Growth
Principles and offered a Doctor of Ministry degree in Church Growth. Those were
hardly days of Lutheran Orthodoxy – more like mainline Enthusiasm.
Robert Preus,
as quoted in the footnote –
22 Robert D. Preus,
“Objective Justification,” Concordia Theological Seminary Newsletter (Spring
1981). In this article, Preus also wrote: “The doctrine of objective
justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture, which tells us
that God, who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our
Savior, has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the
entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19). Objective justification, which is God’s verdict
of acquittal over the whole world, is not identical with the atonement; it is not
another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world.
Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better,
it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ
did to save us; God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been
indeed reconciled, propitiated. His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with
the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world n Christ to be
righteous” (Emphasis added. Punctuation slightly revised.).
In spite of his prolixity on every
front, Webber did not quote Edward Preuss in this selection, although Robert
Preus did cite and quote the Missouri professor turned Romanist immediately
after this quotation. Was this omission a space problem or one of cowardice,
since the Romanist Preuss offered such absurdities in support of this false
doctrine. Paul McCain and Jack Casione, from the same seminary and era, loved
the quotation so much that they quoted it against me. Oh happy day.
Preuss Graphic Here
Needless to say, Jack and Robert Preus
used UOJ to sandbag Walter Maier II, to accuse WAM of false doctrine, and to replace
Maier with Robert Preus. Doubtless that made it difficult for any Preus to
admit they were unethical, avaricious, and wrong.
Questions about the Ed Preuss
blasphemies:
1.
Why
baptize babies who are born forgiven?
2.
Why
repent?
3.
Why
not open heaven to everyone? Karl Barth, the official theologian of Fuller
Seminary taught that concept. Like Carl Braaten and the whole ELCA crew, Barth
taught Webber’s OJ, but a little more honestly.
The key components of LCMS-WELS-ELS-CLC
justification are:
1.
Jesus’
resurrection as world absolution, based on 1 Timothy 3:16, Pietism, and their
ignorance.
2.
The
Atonement and OJ are different.
3.
The
early Church Growth Robert Preus is cited, but the Preus of Justification and Rome is never
mentioned.
Rambach graphic
When Webber used Rambach to counter
Martin Chemitz on justification, Douglas Lindee, who attended Northwestern
College in Watertown, wrote:
Rev. Webber,
I've been away from my desk for several hours now, and I notice that I have
been addressed in several posts, above, but your last post is foremost on my
mind at the moment. I am disappointed. Of course, none of us have ever heard of
this theologian you quote with distinction, Johann Jacob Rambach, and use to
discredit the orthodox theologian Martin Chemnitz in his exegesis of 1 Tim. 3:16. One
of us Intrepids -- not me, not Rev's Rydecki or Spencer, but one of us who does
a lot of work behind the scenes -- began feverishly researching this theologian,
to find out who he is. You quote Rambach from Schmidt/Marquart, so perhaps you
don't really know who he is, either. I assume, in all charity, that you don't.
What our fellow Intrepid found is that Rambach was a confessing Pietist. In
fact, several essays from the WELS essay file identify and criticize him as
such:
Pietism’s Teaching on Church and
Ministry: As Evidenced in its Pastoral Practice
After Three Centuries - The Legacy of
Pietism
Agreement on the Correct View of the
Authority of Scripture as the Source of Doctrine: The Way to Unity in the
Church
A Historical Survey and Brief
Examination of the Hymnbooks Used Within the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran
Synod
The Confessional Lutheran Emigrations
From Prussia And Saxony Around 1839
When I found out about this, I immediately pulled my copy of Loescher's Timotheus Verinus off
the shelf, only to discover that Loescher really had nothing to say about the
man. But when I pulled Schmid's History of Pietism down,
and search for Rambach, I discovered that he was no ordinary Pietist. He was a
Halle Pietist, and a close associate of Hermann August Franke. Schmid, on page
319, identifies Rambach as a Halle Pietist and compatriot of Franke, and
credits Rambach for his accomplishments in the area of hermeneutics -- which
is, no doubt, how it is that we find him prominently mentioned in F.S Schmidt's
work. However, on page 320 Schmid qualifies his praise of such pietists,
stating that their accomplishments are low compared to the harm caused by them:
thee use of such accomplishments was for the purpose of discrediting orthodoxy.
And here we are now, treated to the authoritative work of a German exegete of
whom we were happily ignorant, who is marshaled for the purpose of discrediting
Chemnitz and elevating UOJ, only to discover that this man was a bona
fide Halle Pietist, and that he engaged his work, alongside that of
Franke and other radical Pietists, to serve the design of toppling Lutheran
orthodoxy.
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of
fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this
subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the
pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox
theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal
Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge
from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this
point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal
contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty
of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification --
certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is
Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating
(subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver
Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am
referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle
to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle
Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching
on the matter of Justification.
I knew that Rambach was a pietist. I was not using his observations
on this verse to discredit Chemnitz, but to supplement Chemnitz. His exegesis
and reflections stand on their own, and should be evaluated on their own
merits, regardless of what he might have said on other topics on other
occasions. And it is also clear that on this topic in particular, he was not
inventing a new pietist notion, but was recapitulating the orthodox teaching of
the orthodox theologian Quistorp. Theologians with pietist leanings were not
wrong in everything they said, especially when they were repeating the sound
teaching of orthodox theologians of earlier times.
Webber tried to recover some credibility
on this topic in his essay, p 19
In his own reading of 1 Timothy 3:16,
Luther did not interpret that particular verse in
precisely this fashion.24 But on the
basis of other passages of Scripture – especially Romans 4:25, which Luther did
understand to be teaching a direct connection between the Lord’s
resurrection and humanity’s justification – Luther’s actual teaching on this
point ended up being essentially the same as the teaching of these more recent
Lutheran interpreters.
In Webber’s rationalistic Pietism,
Rambach and Quistorp are worthy Lutherans to quote against Luther and Chemnitz,
but I offer the Holy Spirit against Webber, since he is blind to Romans 4:24
while quoting Romans 4:25
Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it
shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the
dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and
was raised again for our justification. Quoting half of the verse and ignoring
the entire context of Romans 4 is blatant fraud, even if the
Stephan-Walther-Pieper faction indulged themselves in this folly.
Anyone
who knows Jay Webber realizes that he loathes Sig Becker on the topic of
consecration of the elements, where Becker defended the old Synodical
Conference position of Receptionism. The ELS and WELS beat Teigen
like a rented mule for publishing a scholarly expose of this false
teaching. Martin Teigen, The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz,
available free here –
Yet Webber hides behind Becker in this clunker,
footnote, p. 21 –
Some helpful observations have been made in more
recent times specifically regarding the original Greek of Romans 4:25 – which
Luther cites in this sermon and in the Smalcald Articles – where the apostle
writes that Jesus “was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised
for our justification.” This verse can also be translated to say that Jesus was
handed over or delivered up “because of” (dia) our trespasses, and was raised
up “because of” (dia) our justification. This would probably be a better
rendering, in fact. Siegbert W. Becker points out that “When
Paul says that Christ
was delivered because of our transgressions, the
dia [‘because of”] is without a doubt retrospective. He was put to death
because our sins had been imputed to him. And while it is true that ‘our’ in
this context refers to believers, and [that] only believers can say what Paul
says here, yet it is crystal clear that what Paul asserts here of
believers is true of all men.
Becker’s
popularity with WELS and the Receptionist faction of Missouri is probably
derived from his habit of making unfounded and absurd assertions. Ignoring
Romans 4, the climax of Romans 4 found in Romans 5:1-2, and forgetting Romans
4:24 altogether, Romans 4:25 bursts into Universal Absolution without faith –
crystal clear to Enthusiasts belonging to the Stephany-Walther-Pieper Amen
Corner.
Let us savor this irony. The error
of Becker in denying the consecration of the elements of Holy Communion through
the efficacious Word is the same one he makes in denying justification by faith
in the classic justification by faith chapter of the New Testament. Readers
should linger over the fact that Abraham is the Old Testament hero of
justification by faith, Genesis 15, cited by Jesus against the “sons of
Abraham” in John 8, taught here in Romans 4, and cited again in Galatians. Why
did the Rich Man pray to Father Abraham in Luke’s parable? Lazarus was
justified by faith and carried to heaven, but the rich man only had earthly
works and a claim to be a descendant of Abraham. In Hebrews too, Abraham is an
example of faith.
Hebrews 11:8 By faith
Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after
receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he
went.
9 By faith he
sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in
tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he
looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through
faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered
of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had
promised.
12 Therefore
sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the
sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all
died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off,
and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were
strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Justification
by faith is missing in Pietism because the efficacy of the Word is missing.
Where the efficacy of the Word is forgotten, so too is the exclusive work of
the Holy Spirit in the Word. Thus many sects speak of communion of baptism and
deny the efficacy of both. Many speak of forgiveness and grace through Jesus,
but tear down – as Webber does – the bridge to Jesus, the Means of Grace. Many
different sects and cults speak of Objective Justification but not one of them
teaches the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace.
It
is a sad commentary on the merging of Missouri, WELS, and the ELS that this
pack of lies, ignorance, and fraud is published and circulated in their names.
The ELS may have stayed with its Norwegian Pietism and its faults with stolid
resistance to Luther and St. Paul, but it is well known that justification by
faith was clearly taught and still flickers faintly in the LCMS and WELS.
G. The Formula of Concord’s
Teaching and Luther’s Teaching
Repudiation of Jay Webbers OJ Essay at Emmaus
G. The
Formula of Concord’s Teaching and Luther’s Teaching
Webber declared:
At the end of Article III
of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, which deals
with the subject of the
righteousness of faith, we read: “For any further, necessary
explanation of this lofty and sublime article on justification before God, upon
which the salvation of our souls depends, we wish to recommend to everyone the
wonderful, magnificent exposition by Dr. Luther of St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians, and for the sake of brevity we refer to it at this point.”28 That is
a pretty weighty endorsement of Luther’s Lectures on Galatians! And it is a
worthy endorsement, because these lectures do indeed embody some of the best
material produced by the older Luther – on justification itself, and on the
other articles of faith that are organically connected to justification. (p. 23)
Every UOJ writer lays down a
smokescreen of praise for Luther, as if the Reformer invented their strange,
anti-Christian, dual-justification labels. As expected Webber employs the same
trick, conjuring the name Luther while imposing the dogma of Stephan’s Pietism
–
Webber:
And
as we would expect, the Galatians Lectures do address the subject of
justification and forgiveness according to the objective and subjective
categories – even though that terminology is not employed in so many words. (p.
23)
How fascinating! Unknowing, Luther
anticipated the discovery of UOJ and even addressed it in his most important
commentary. Has Webber read the Galatians Commentary, word for word? Or has he
only glanced through it to find his imaginary seeds of UOJ, ready to sprout at
the culmination of all ecclesiastical history – the formation of the ELS?
The theme of the commentary is to
contrast justification by faith with justification by works. Webber strains to
emphasize the death of Christ for “all sinners” as if he is arguing with
someone. Justification does not deny the Atonement, the Redemption of the
world. But the Biblical teaching of justification by faith does reject the
skewering of forgiveness by having OJ pronounce a universal absolution as the
true Gospel, a justification -
·
Without
the Spirit,
·
Without
the Word,
·
Without
the Means of Grace,
·
Wthout
faith.
This doctrinal incompetence puts Webber,
Buchholz, Pope John the Malefactor, and others in a quandary. Following the
early Robert Preus, the Atonement is not Objective Justification. But Webber
and the entire clown cast – from Stephan-Walther-Pieper to Valleskey to
Cascione-McCain – jump on every Atonement passage in the Bible, the
Confessions, and Luther and exclaim with boyish delight – “Another OJ passage!
Lutheran justification is indeed OJ/SJ!”
But they are terribly wrong and
confusing everyone who tries to comprehend their delusion while comparing it to
simple, clear Biblical truths. The Atonement is the Gospel, and this Gospel
fulfillment of Isaiah 53 produces faith when the Spirit works through the Word to
distribute the treasure – Christ’s death for all sinners.
Portraying justification as universal
absolution reduces the Means of Grace to a label. Given the origin of Objective
Justification outside of the Lutheran Church, and observing its continued existence
among the cults and mainline apostates, it is not surprising to find the Means
of Grace discarded, disregarded, and disrespected in the worship life – or
rather the entertainment seeker services – of the “conservative” Lutherans. Nor
have the demi-semi-high church Lutherans found any weapon against the rapid
encroachment of this true revelation of the evil of UOJ.
This dogma of Calvinists and Pietists
could not stop the radical attack on the Bible in the LCMS and WELS, the
blossoming of the Pentecostal movement among Lutherans, and the putrification
of Church Growth in all of them – from the dying ELCA to the equally moribund,
tiny Church of the Lutheran Confession (sic).
Webber is so intent on making Luther a
UOJ Stormtrooper that he says this:
“The objective consequence
of Christ’s work, and the content of the gospel that is now to be preached for
salvation, is that in Christ there is no more judgment, no more wrath, and no
more damnation. The gospel is not a message
merely that a way for these things to be abolished in the future is now
available.” (p. 26f.) GJ – The second sentence is a
muddled mess.
This MDiv is truly befuddled by
Christian doctrine. He continually labels the entire world “in Christ” when
that Biblical phrase only applies to believers - frequently used in the New
Testament. Is there a single reference to unbelievers being “in Christ”?
But there is condemnation, as Luther
observed. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin – because they do not
believe on Him. John 16:8f. Moreover, as Luther taught, this is the
foundational sin, unbelief, from which all sin is derived.
Webber - again:
Luther very artfully
compares and contrasts what we would describe as the objective and subjective
aspects of God’s forgiveness. (p. 27)
Now Webber has thrown his lot in with
Luther and admires the Reformer for using the OJ/SJ labels without knowing it.
I have no issue with Luther, but if Webber agrees with Luther – how can he
agree with Woods-Knapp, Stephan, Walther, Pieper, JP Meyer, Valleskey, and
Buchholz?
Another question is even more obvious –
If Webber agrees with Luther, then why does he disagree with all of us who
know, understand, believe, and teach justification by faith – the Chief Article
he mocks so often in this endless, pointless paper.
Webber climaxes this section with an
amusing paragraph, where he looks at Luther and sees himself in the mirror –
And yet, as Luther also
emphasizes, it is only in the application, and in the faith which the
Holy Spirit works in Christians, that believers are personally liberated
from the kingdom and tyranny of sin and death. Without the converting and
regenerating work of the Spirit – through the means of grace – the absolution
of “everyone” does not actually benefit everyone. Ultimately, that
absolution benefits only those who do eventually receive it by faith. (p. 29)
Thus Webber teaches a justification
without faith, without real forgiveness, and an absolution without effect –
prefiguring his doctrinal essay without Christian doctrine, except in the
Luther and Book of Concord quotations he parodies in other places.
Part
II: Why Objective Justification Matters to Us
A. Luther
and the Theologians of the Age of Orthodoxy p. 29
This reminds me of being lost on the way
home to Springdale. The signage was confusing because of the new I-49
designation being incomplete. We passed the same elegant bridge twice in one
hour of wandering. Not again!
After displaying complete ignorance of
Luther and incomprehension of the Reformer’s message, Webber raises up Luther
again.
Once again Webber offers the class notes
or Cliff Notes version of church history. Those after Luther used philosophical
categories. Melanchthon is cited as guilty, but I have never read an essay more
grace-filled than Phillip’s treatment of justification by faith in the Apology.
Has Webber read it with discernment? I think not.
Another consideration is worth noting
for those who only graduated from seminary and never defended a real
dissertation, a book, an article, or a review. Was it not God’s will that the
Gospel would be conveyed in the Greek language, thanks to Alexander the Great
creating a Hellenistic culture and Constantine a Christian, Greek empire?
The Reformation took place after 15
centuries of philosophical development, in Greek and Latin. The greatest early
theologian was Augustine, master of the culture of his time, author of The City of God, which blended all
things classical with Biblical teaching. Much more could be said about Aquinas,
who used Aristotle as his basis, defending Rome in clear Medieval Latin. Therefore,
the Reformation had to speak to the culture of the time, especially when
Protestant and Roman Catholic opponents sought to defeat the Lutherans with
these philosophical tools. Luther could and did use those tools against his
opponents, and he had the greatest respect for Melanchthon’s grasp and teaching
of the Gospel. Luther hurled some barbs about Aristotle, but theology and
philosophy were joined together then and still are today. Unfortunately, almost
all modern theologians are post-Kantian Halle rationalists, who use the
religious terms without believing anything.
Webber compares the simplicity of
Luther’s expressions with the complexity of Gerhard’s, (p. 32) but I could
easily quote the simplicity of Gerhard against the complexity of Luther at his
finest – in the Galatians Commentary,
which Webber has not read. Luther uses many pages explaining the obscure terms
of congruous and incongruous grace, Roman Catholic terms, precisely as the
papists define the terms, but then deconstructing every possible prop for those
terms.
Gerhard taught justification by faith
and his definition allows no room for UOJ, so perhaps Webber has not forgiven
Chemnitz’ co-laborer for slighting Jay’s favorite dogma. Webber is the genius
who offered Rambach’s Pietist perspective over Chemnitz’ – in dealing with 1
Timothy 3:16, so we all know the cards are being dealt from the bottom of the
deck.
Webber cited Rydecki on page 32, but
where is Rydecki in the references? Such sloppiness would get a paper tossed
out of a graduate school class. It is dishonest and craven. Aegidius Hunnius, Theses Opposed to Huberism: A
Defense of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification (translated by Paul A.
Rydecki) (Malone, Texas: Repristination Press, 2012), p. 57. Emphases in
original.
Ho hum. Webber tries to extricate
himself from his basic agreement with Huber, the first Lutheran to teach OJ.
Walther made the same attempt, but he was the born-again founder of the
Missouri Synod who conceded that Stephan was “a bit of a Pietist.” (Servant of
the Word, humor section)
And Gerhard taught OJ, says Webber –
just like Luther? Once again there is a paradox, where someone mocks
justification by faith and declares he is one with a teaching of Biblical
justification.
Calov is also cited in this section (p.
36) as being one with UOJ Enthusiasts, an old claim exploded by Robert Preus
himself. As mentioned before, Webber’s years at Ft. Wayne preclude his denial
of Justification and Rome’s message. An ELCA pastor would not know or care
about Robert Preus, but Webber took his diploma from Preus. How can this major
book be ignored when none of us can claim the knowledge of the post-Concord
theologians that Robert Preus had.
Let me pose a question. Does anything
think a man who knows neither Luther, nor Melanchthon, nor the Book of Concord
is magically an expert on the incredibly productive Gerhard and Calov? Each
man’s work is like the Great Pyramid. We would not believe it humanly possible
except for the fact that the dual monuments of Biblical scholarship exist today
as proof of their prolific genius.
B. Justification in the Narrow Sense and in a Broader Sense
p. 36
Repudiation of the Jay Webber OJ Essay
B. Justification in the Narrow Sense
and in a Broader Sense
Another thing to take note of
in the theology of this period, is that the term “justification”
was almost always interpreted
and used in a very strict and narrow sense, as referring to the personal
application of the righteousness of Christ to an individual through the means
of grace; and to the appropriation and reception of that righteousness by an
individual through faith. We generally do not see the term “justification”
being employed according to a broader sense…p 36 GJ – more like – never.
This statement minces around the basic
fact – justification always means justification by faith, in the Bible, during
the Reformation, and in the post-Reformation era. The Huber amalgamation of his
Calvinistic past meant that the substance of Objective Justification was
introduced, but P. Leyser, Hunnius, and others quashed it and ejected Huber.
The error of Objective Justification was
first the Easter absolution (based on 1 Timothy 3:16 being rationalized), but
the first use of the terms Objective
Justification and Subjective Justification came from the late era of Pietism.
The first use in a well known book is the Calvinist Woods’ translation of Knapp
– the Halle Pietist.
So the false teachers have reversed the
meaning of the term justification, so they assume or pretend that the Chief
Article of the Christian Faith, the Master and Prince, the article on which the
Church stands or falls – is justification without faith!
And yet Webber, who has quarreled about
words for several decades, warns pastors not to quarrel about words, p 38. The
UOJ Enthusiasts have bent over backwards to force their philosophy on everyone,
to excommunicate those who disagree, and to normalize this blatant rejection of
the Christian Faith.
Webber even uses the obscure Quistorp to
prop up his OJ, even though no Lutheran body, congregation, or cell group has
subscribed to the writings of Qustorp – or heard of him. Suddenly Little in
Canada and Quistorp in Rostock supplant and improve upon Luther, Melanchthon,
Chemnitz, and Gerhard.
C. Luther and the Missouri Synod, p.
38
Also during the discussion of
the theses, someone asked this question:
The tenet has always been
declared and confessed by us that through Christ’s resurrection from the dead
God has absolved the whole world, that is, pardoned its sins. If, according to
this, the whole world has already been absolved and its sin pardoned long ago,
what exactly is absolution or the preaching of the Gospel in the church? Is it
also a pardon, or merely an announcement of the pardon which has already
occurred?
Brohm replied, in effect,
that the good news of our absolution does not do us any good if we do not hear
it. And God has ordained that the Gospel be proclaimed, so that we can hear
it. But when we do hear this message, we are not merely being informed about
something from long ago and far away. p 39
Missouri took over the Easter absolution
language of Pietism from Walther, who learned it from Martin Stephan, a student
but not a graduate of Halle University.
Pietism filtered the lessons of the
Reformation so celebrity leaders like Spener and Franke displaced Luther,
Melanchthon, and Chemnitz. Cooperation was judged more important than sound
doctrine, and the Sacraments could be defined by non-Lutherans to make that
cooperation happen.
We can see that Pietistic effect in the
former Lutheran Church in America, where the Formula of Concord era was ignored
completely in favor of the unionism and compromises of Pietism. The General
Synod had revivals, mourners’ benches, and a very low view of the liturgy and
creeds. An era of confessionalism sparked by the General Council helped, but
Pietism and rationalism re-emerged after the 1918 merger of all the Muhlenberg
groups into the United Lutheran Church in America.
D. The Norwegian Synod and the Pietists
p. 41
The heading is confusing, because all
Lutheran groups in America were Pietistic. The Swedish Augustana Synod was
profoundly influenced by the generosity and doctrinal integrity of William
Passavant, a giant of American Lutheranism – strangely not mentioned at all.
Passavant brokered the creation of the Chicago Seminary (often called Maywood,
ULCA), but the seminary professors had to sign their allegiance to the
Confessions to teach. Passavant insisted on that because he came out of and
grew out of revivalism. He rejected Pietism for loyalty to the Confessions and
influenced Augustana in that direction.
Augustana did not accept the
Stephan-Walther formula of the Easter absolution of the world – without faith.
For the blindly loyal Missouri member, the Norwegian acceptance of Easter
absolution was wonderful. But the same basic dogma was being read in the
English version of Knapp textbook used in all Protestant schools.
Now we begin to smell the roast. The
Norwegian Synod is “orthodox” and the Swedes are “Pietists.”
The
Norwegian Synod pastors gently warned their Augustana Synod friends that “If the
Gospel and Absolution contained nothing more than what man by faith put into
them, then man really had to depend on his faith – he had to have faith in his own faith –
and not in the Gospel.”56
p. 42
This shows that the Norwegians had no
more grasp of justification than Webber, so he approves, but what a damaging
approval. Walther stated clearly that he was teaching faith in universal
forgiveness, which is only one step away from Universalism.
Webber:
The
contours of this debate between these two synods – one consciously rooted in
Reformational
thinking, and the other influenced by Pietism more then they probably realized
– are essentially the same contours that manifested themselves in succeeding
years, when the synods that would or did make up the membership of the
Synodical Conference continued to defend their Confessional teaching about the
objectivity of the gospel, and the objectivity of the forgiveness of sins
within the gospel, against various attacks and misrepresentations from other
Lutheran groups in America. P. 42
Webber
admitted before that the Reformation taught justification by faith, the
“narrow” view. The straight and narrow version is far better than the broad and
popular version of the World Council of Churches. Therefore, his clumsy narration
betrays the Pietism of the Norwegians and hides the correct position of the
Swedes by vilifying it.
Webber omits
the fact that this conflict produced the fourth Kokomo Statement, which WELS
made mandatory for membership, kicking out the families who disagreed.
Rolf Preus
recorded the martyrdom of Herman Amberg Preus, another reason for the Preus
brothers Jack and Robert, and Robert’s sons, to remain loyal to absolution
without faith. The Anti-Missouri Brotherhood’s agitation led to the removal of
Preus from his congregation.
The last parts
are equally pathetic, a transparent attempt to rewrite doctrinal history while
ignoring the Biblical truths rescued from the papacy.
The UOJ clowns
have created their own interlocking papacy. Like the Marian salesmen, they say,
“The Church has always taught this,” but it is absolution without faith – except
faith in that universal absolution – instead of the Assumption and Immaculate
Conception of Mary.
As their hero
Edward Preuss said upon leaving his St. Louis seminary professorship for Rome,
“Give me the documents and I can prove anything.”
That is especially
true of someone with little training, no serious publications, and no spiritual
discernment.
**
References
Jay Webber’s One-Sided References, p.
53f.
The present essay is chiefly a work of
historical theology. We have explored the question of what our forefathers in
the faith believed and taught with respect to the matter of objective and subjective
justification, and why. We have also sought to learn some lessons from this
history for the well-being of the church in our own time. We have endeavored
not to duplicate the fine work that has been done by others over the years, in
explicating the doctrine of justification in all of its parts from the
perspective of exegetical theology and pastoral theology, or in addressing the historical
dimensions of this subject in ways that focus on times and places other than
where our focus has been. The following bibliography is comprised of such other
writings, which we
recommend for further study:
Buchholz, Jon D. “Jesus Canceled Your
Debt!” 2012. Available online.
Curia, Rick Nicholas. The Significant
History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification among the
Churches of the Former Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America.
1983. Available online.
Hardt, Tom G. A. “Justification and
Easter: A Study in Subjective and Objective Justification in Lutheran Theology,”
in A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus, edited by Kurt E.
Marquart, John R. Stephenson, and Bjarne W. Teigen. Fort Wayne: Concordia
Theological Seminary, 1985. The Hardt essay is available online.
Marquart, Kurt E. “Objective
Justification.” 1998. Available online.
Marquart, Kurt E. “The Reformation Roots
of Objective Justification,” in A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert
Preus. The Marquart essay is available online.
Preus, Herman Amberg. “The Justification
of the World.” 1874. Translated by Herbert Larson. Available online.
Preus, Robert D. “Objective
Justification.” Concordia Theological Seminary Newsletter (Spring 1981).
Available online.
Preus, Robert D., compiler. Selected
Articles on Objective Justification. Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological
Seminary Press, n.d. Available online. The authors of the articles in this
collection are W. Arndt, H. J. Bouman, Theodore Engelder, Martin H. Franzmann,
Edward W. A. Koehler, and George Stoeckhardt.
Schurb, Ken R. Does the Lutheran
Confessions’ Emphasis on Subjective Justification Mitigate Their Teaching of
Objective Justification? 1982. Available online.
Walther, C. F. W. “The Doctrine of
Justification,” Lutheran Standard, November 1, 1872, pp. 163ff. Available
online. This is an English translation of the essay that was delivered (in
German) at the inaugural convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical
Conference. The official proceedings of the convention do not identify the
essayist. Some have stated that the essayist on this occasion was Friedrich A.
Schmidt, but our conclusion, based on all the evidence (including the testimony
of Franz Pieper), is that it was Walther.
Walther, C. F. W. “Easter: Christ’s
Resurrection – The World’s Absolution,” in The Word of His Grace: Sermon
Selections. Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, pp.
229-36.
Walther, C. F. W. Justification:
Subjective and Objective. Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press,
1982. Translated by Kurt E. Marquart. This is a more recent translation of the
essay delivered at the 1872 convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical
Conference. (The materials listed above that are available online, can all be
accessed by means of this “Lutheran Theology” web page:
tinyurl.com/lutherantheology)
Commentary
by Gregory L. Jackson Follows
This set of references is truly a rotten
pot and stinks up the entire paper, as expected. Normally I go to the
references first, before reading a paper, but this time I waited, my mouth open
in shock at the repeated unverified claims made by Jay Webber, MDiv.
Presenting only one side of an issue and
never giving credit to another view is a typical undergraduate approach,
worsened by today’s political – or identity – politics. The “conservative”
Lutherans are no better. This is not even undergraduate work, because the
argumentation wanders all over the field without addressing key issues or
authors.
Nothing on the list supports
justification by faith, which is the intended target of his essay, although the
author is not honest enough or brave enough to admit his agenda. Instead, the
references lead the unwary to think the entire topic of justification is covered,
if superficially by this list.
I know Robert Preus taught at Concordia,
Ft. Wayne and was president of the seminary when Jay graduated. I attended some
classes there, including David Scaer’s, Klemet Preus’, and lectures by
Marquart, Preus, and one of their liberals.
One would expect that Preus’ last work –
on justification – would be included in this short list. But lo – it is not. Justification and Rome is missing in the
essay and missing as a reference. Risking a violation of the Eighth
Commandment, I contend this happened because Preus clearly repudiated UOJ in
his book, repeatedly and clearly, in his own words and those of the late
orthodox period, the subject of his second doctorate. Robert and Jack Preus
teamed up against Walter A. Maier, on this very topic, giving Robert the Ft.
Wayne presidency instead of Maier. That made it difficult for Robert to admit
he was wrong, but he did retract his error through this book.
Even more important – I expect Martin
Luther’s Galatians Commentary to be
on the list, since the Concordists named it as a work for additional subject. The
commentary is only mentioned in the essay, never addressed, because Luther made
it his final, his ultimate work on justification by faith.
The Righteousness of Faith, Article III,
Formula of Concord is never discussed seriously. The sub-headings of the
Apology would have made interesting commentary, but that brilliant essay on
Justification by Faith is missing.
The Augustana? Forget that confession –
too concise, too plain and simple. The laity might understand it and toss out
the imposters promoting UOJ.
Instead, we have Buchholz’ pathetic OJ
gyrations promoted; DP Jon returned the favor by sending around Webber’s sad
spectacle of a paper.
Rick Curia’s little book is important,
because he took the time to gather all the UOJ material he could, post-Kokomo. I
mined some of the best, most absurd UOJ quotations from that book – such as
Edward Preuss having all the Hindu and Hottentotts justified.
I addressed both sides of the issue with
Thy Strong Word. The UOJ quotations
shocked many clergy and awakened many laity. Since then I have re-issued the
book free, English-only. Buchholz, who considers himself brilliant, had his own
free copy, but he never read it or unpacked it when he left his debt-ridden
congregation in Washington for Tempe, Arizona.
Everyone is getting increasingly
feverish after JP Meyer’s Ministers of
Christ, which set a new record in plumbing the depths of false doctrine.
Three of Meyer’s theses became part of the Kokomo Statements, which were used
as the standard of orthodoxy to kick two families out of WELS.
Webber claims – absurdly – “The present essay
is chiefly a work of historical theology.” But
he omits Kokomo, skips over the invention of OJ/SJ in the Woods translation
(which is perhaps found elsewhere). Knapp was very significant for Protestants
in the 19th century, certainly for German Lutherans, and the
Calvinist translator Woods was one of those Wunderkinder
in his own denomination. The impact was there, but where is the history? Nota
bene – WELS re-issued Meyer’s book with all the worst statements still there,
endorsed by implication by the editor Panning, retired Mequon seminary
president, who was on the committee that seconded the defenestration of the two
Kokomo families.
No Meyer – No Gausewitz. If one argues
that Meyer is a minor figure, apart from WELS, then why ignore Gausewitz, who
served as Synodical Conference president, pastor of Grace Downtown in
Milwaukee, and author of the catechism used by the Synodical Conference for
decades? The original Gausewitz catechism had no UOJ in it at all. Now it is
out of print and hard to find.
Likewise, the LCMS has a KJV catechism
very much like it – no UOJ. The KJV catechism is still in print, still being
sold – is everyone blind and deaf?
Webber began with his hero, Little from
Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, but those books are not listed in the references.
 |
Rambach's UOJ rules in the LCMS, WELS, and ELS.
ELCA teaches the same dogma and celebrates it as "grace." |
